WEATHER »

UCSB Student Faces Deportation

Cindy Reyna Convicted of DUI and Turned Over to Federal Authorities


Originally published 12:00 p.m., March 1, 2012
Updated 4:00 p.m., March 1, 2012
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Comments
Share Article

An undocumented UCSB student may be deported after she was arrested and convicted of driving under the influence late last month. Cindy Reyna, 23, was booked into Santa Barbara County Jail on February 22 and passed to the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials on February 29. A DREAM Act-eligible student, Reyna moved to the country with her family in February 2004 on a six-month visitor’s visa. She’s now a UCSB senior majoring in communications and linguistics and is a part-time model.

Cindy Reyna
Click to enlarge photo

modelmayhem.com

Cindy Reyna

An online petition set up two days ago by Reyna’s friends and classmates directed at two ICE directors to stop her deportation had nearly 9,000 signatures by Thursday afternoon. “Cindy is a young, ambitious, and hardworking student who came to the U.S. at the age of 15 on a visa from Guatemala,” the statement reads. “Her father, a U.S. citizen, tried to petition citizenship for Cindy, but while pursuing her college career she aged out of the broken immigration system. … Cindy is not a criminal; she is a student, a hardworking individual, a member of the community, and a potential college graduate.”

Her supporters point out that Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano recently stated that young immigrants eligible for possible DREAM Act benefits are not a deportation priority. The federal DREAM Act, which was voted down in the Senate last year but may be revisited by Congress in 2013, would allow illegal immigrants who entered the U.S. before they were 16 years old to earn an opportunity for citizenship if they graduate from high school, go to college or enroll in the military, and stay out of trouble.

According to an ICE spokesperson, Reyna was released from a Camarillo holding center under an “alternatives to detention program” and is required to regularly report to the federal agency before her upcoming hearing in front of an immigration judge. Reyna’s blood-alcohol level was above 0.08 percent at the time of her arrest, authorities said. “It will be up to the immigration judge to determine whether Ms. Reyna has a legal basis to remain in the United States,” the spokesperson explained.

Drew Sugars, Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department spokesperson, said ICE agents arrive at the County Jail approximately three times a week, sometimes to pick up detainees, sometimes to interface with county law enforcement officials. It’s “not uncommon” for them to take jail inmates into federal custody, he said. Total numbers of recent pickups were not immediately available. The fingerprints of all County Jail inmates are sent to ICE when the detainees are processed. The federal agency can then request the jail to put a no-bail immigration hold on certain inmates who may be in the country illegally.

Another undocumented UCSB student, who was the subject of a November 2010 story in The Santa Barbara Independent, estimated there were approximately 250 undocumented students enrolled in UCSB at the time. (Other sources, however, say that number is closer to 80.) The UC Office of the President predicts there were around 600 undocumented students enrolled in the 10-campus statewide system for the 2010-2011 school year.

UCSB Chancellor Henry T. Yang wrote a letter on Reyna’s behalf to ICE officials asking for her release, and he said he’s working with Representative Lois Capps on the issue. “I am asking that you look deeply into the circumstances of this young woman’s academic career and her life journey to this point,” said Yang in the letter, “to carefully consider her desire to pursue citizenship, and to envision the contributions she is making, and will continue to make, to our community. I unequivocally support her release from detention to complete her studies and to pursue her citizenship petition.”

Comments

Independent Discussion Guidelines

She broke the law by staying here and broke the law when she drove under the influence. I am appalled at the tolerance the school is showing for her doing something that could have killed innocent people!

santabarbarasand (anonymous profile)
March 1, 2012 at 2 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Santabarbarasand get a clue. FYI the only mistake this girl did was drive under the influence which even citizen who were born here do, citizens who are good for nothing. And yet they get chance after chance after chance. This girl is making something of herself so why not give her the chance that many of us were born here aren't taking. Look at the council guy from Carpinteria he still hasn't gotten out of counsil or served time but this girl should be punished for chasing her dreams just because of a little mistake she made. I say give the girl a secound chance.

e1986gonzalez (anonymous profile)
March 1, 2012 at 3:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Deport her. What a nitwit to come here illegally, take advantage of our largess, and then drink and drive.

italiansurg (anonymous profile)
March 1, 2012 at 4:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

She pretty cute, let's go ahead and keep her.

Riceman (anonymous profile)
March 1, 2012 at 4:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Aliens who immigrate illegally while age 15 or younger should be the lowest priority for deportation indeed. But when they drive drunk and get caught, the story is different and they indeed are one of those criminals that all the activists claim repeatedly should be the ones deported, not the law-abiding students etc.

The immigration activists need to think hard about this and how arguing for an exception for this one student, pretty as she is, only will yield tremendous blowback, backlash, and resentment to their other DREAMs.

John_Adams (anonymous profile)
March 1, 2012 at 4:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Gonzalez, I have never gotten a DUI but if I did I would be prosecuted I'm sure and I would expect that. She is not a citizen, she is illegal and on top of it she commited a major crime, DUI is not some petty mistake, it is an action that can kill innocent people. How would you feel if she had struck the car your mother or child was driving?

santabarbarasand (anonymous profile)
March 1, 2012 at 4:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Her supporters point out that Homeland Security secretary Janet Napolitano recently stated that immigrants eligible for DREAM Act benefits are not a deportation priority."

Janet can state all she wants, but if that ain't the policy, bye-bye Cindy.

SBsand: "I am appalled at the tolerance the school is showing for her doing something that could have killed innocent people!"

In an atmosphere where entitlement rules & 2 wrongs make a right, what else can you expect?

1986gonz: "the only mistake this girl did was drive under the influence"

Actually, being here illegally makes it 2 for 2.

1986gonz: "which even citizens who were born here do, citizens who are good for nothing. And yet they get chance after chance after chance."

Not very accurate. I guarantee you if you or me get popped by the popo on a similar charge we go tojail. But we don't get deported because we're here legally. Well, @ least my greencard says so.

italiansurg: "Deport her. What a nitwit to come here illegally, take advantage of our largess, and then drink and drive."

But dude, you're missing the point. SHE'S HOT! Well, @ least that's Riceman's schtick. HAHAHA!

John_A: "Aliens who immigrate illegally while age 15 or younger should be the lowest priority for deportation indeed. But when they drive drunk and get caught, the story is different and they indeed are one of those criminals that all the activists claim repeatedly should be the ones deported, not the law-abiding students etc."

This is absolutrey true, good point(s). But they'll try to make her a poster child for immigrant's rights. How's that saying go? Oh, yeah: Just cause you can don't mean that you should.

Anon1: "good looks and going to school are no excuse..."

There's a whole scene there that's gonna beg to differ. Best & brightest? Don't think so.

Personally, she seems to have adapted/assimilated to the UCSB "party w/ the beautiful people" scene.
I think she also believes her cute looks will get her what she wants, a common trait of that scene.
Adaptation/assimilation is a part of becoming accepted for US citizenship. The question is this: Is this the kind of adaptation/assimilation that will be worth anything? :) henry

hank (anonymous profile)
March 1, 2012 at 5:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

She's illegal and should be deported. Now that she's an adult, she can reenter the US the correct way and do her paper work correctly, just like the rest of the legal immigrants. This wasn't a priority until she broke the law

retprotector (anonymous profile)
March 1, 2012 at 6:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

My understanding--based on what I've read--is that if you have a parent who is a U.S. citizen then you are one too.

I wonder of the pro-illegal immigration forces don't delibertaly deport such borderline cases in order to gain more sympathy for the illegal immgration Ponzi scheme.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
March 1, 2012 at 6:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh yes, I forgot to add that she IS hot--which is a point that has been made clear by her sympathizers.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
March 1, 2012 at 6:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

A pity and a tragedy to deport her! But as long as we have countries we will have citizenship, and as long as we have citizenship there will be immigration issues. Now I can Imagine there's no Countries. But we're not there yet. The best now is for all of her supporters to sponsor her for citizenship/immigration once she has returned to Guatemala. Although I bet she could get fake papers at a drop of a hat in SoCal.

snugspout (anonymous profile)
March 1, 2012 at 7:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Correct me if I'm wrong but Guatemala is not some sort of totolitarian dictatorship. We act like being deported back to the country she was born in is like an exile to Siberia. Last time I checked American isn't all that popular with the rest of the world, so I think it is a bit arrogant to take the position that this country is such an obviously better place than Guatemala. If she is smart, good looking, and hard working, she should prosper in Guatemala, and be a productive part of the society that she was born into. She will be fine, and a hard working american can take her place at UCSB.

johnny123 (anonymous profile)
March 1, 2012 at 8:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Johnny: I have heard that Guatemala is so bad that even Mexico turns away (hypocritically I might add) those Guatamalens who try to enter.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
March 1, 2012 at 9:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Deport Joe Armendariz. And while we're at it, let's kick out the mean spirited people who degrade our society.

JayB (anonymous profile)
March 1, 2012 at 9:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"I wonder of the pro-illegal immigration forces don't delibertaly deport such borderline cases in order to gain more sympathy for the illegal immgration Ponzi scheme."

I wonder if you've sought treatment for these paranoid fantasies.

"Oh yes, I forgot to add that she IS hot--which is a point that has been made clear by her sympathizers."

No, actually, it's something focused on heavily by the other side -- the article made no mention of her looks.

JayB (anonymous profile)
March 1, 2012 at 9:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If her father's a US citizen, clearly he or she dropped the ball in the immigration process. She could have easily obtained permanent residency. That is the story we didn't hear. What we DO hear are these public officials pandering. She violated the law twice. She's not worthy of becoming a US citizen. She should be sent back. The example that US citizens behave worse is irrelevant. Just because some of our own citizens behave badly or worse, is not a reason that is should be tolerated from those that are here illegally. We have enough trouble dealing with our own citizens that behave badly, let's get rid of those here illegally that do the same.

Botany (anonymous profile)
March 1, 2012 at 9:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Did anyone besides myself Google "Dream Act" and learned that it's basically a state law which allows illegal immigrants who managed to attend at least 3 years of high school here without getting deported, to receive financial aid to pay for their college education?
I guess I don't understand the definition of "illegal"...
And let's not sugar-coat it by calling it "undocumented".

JAM (anonymous profile)
March 1, 2012 at 11:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Routinely we subsidize foreign students and then fail to give them green cards when they graduate. Back they go, to compete against us. It's a form of foreign aid.

Petty criminals with professional or academic accomplishments, but who are illegal immigrants, should be given the option of military enlistement. Win-win, with any luck!

Adonis_Tate (anonymous profile)
March 2, 2012 at 3:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

So why JayB, is her being a model mentioned?

billclausen (anonymous profile)
March 2, 2012 at 4:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

...And the glamour shot?

billclausen (anonymous profile)
March 2, 2012 at 4:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"The immigration activists need to think hard about this and how arguing for an exception for this one student..."

Who are we and what can of worms do we open when we decide to discriminate between who should be deported & who should stay?

summer (anonymous profile)
March 2, 2012 at 7:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

With all the great people patiently waiting in line to get into this great country, why keep someone who doesn’t want to obey the law?

Question to "Summer"-
If we don’t discriminate about who can come into the country, as you put it, should we just open ALL our boarders and allow EVERYONE in who wants to come here? One billion Chinese? Another 40 million Mexicans? What about 20 million Vietnamese? 55 million Nigerians? Criminals? Child molesters?
You see, Summer-that is why we have rules and laws that allow for people to come here LEGALLY.

edukder (anonymous profile)
March 2, 2012 at 8:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

That should be "Borders" lol

edukder (anonymous profile)
March 2, 2012 at 9:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"So why JayB, is her being a model mentioned? "

For the same reason that, if she were working as a plumber, they would have mentioned that. If you want to know why that picture was printed, ask the Independent (which is not synonymous with "her sympathizers"). Again, it is simply fact that the people who focus on her looks are primarily not sympathizers ... e.g., you, anonymousONE, hank, ... and surely Riceman did not exactly express a liberal sentiment.

@JAM You need to work on your googling skills; the DREAM Act is federal, not state (thus the mention of ICE, Homeland Security, Napolitano, the Senate, Congress, the U.S. -- all federal level) and none of the rest of what you wrote is accurate either.

"Who are we and what can of worms do we open when we decide to discriminate between who should be deported & who should stay? "

Um, we're sane and rational? People have argued that, even if she is eligible for the DREAM Act, she is guilty of DUI and thus is a good choice for deportation ... it's debatable, but not unreasonable. If we do not discriminate, then how do we justify per-country quotas? How do we justify an immigration policy at all? With no discrimination, we're suckers for things like Cuba sending us all their criminals and mentally ill, as they did in 1980.

JayB (anonymous profile)
March 2, 2012 at 9:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

She never even hurt anybody and now her life is ruined!

If we had a reasonable immigration policy she could come back, but we have a horrible immigration policy, she will have to sneak back instead. What a waste.

It doesn't say what her BAC actually was and the founder of MADD actually disassociated herself from the organization when they began to lobby for lowering the legal BAC from .10 to .08.... Her intention was to enforce the existing laws, not to ruin people's lives who have only had a couple of drinks and are able to drive perfectly safe.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
March 2, 2012 at 10:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeah, I say send her back. DREAM act (whose dream, exactly? Certainly not mine as I didn't get free financial support for school despite being born to a family that's been here since the inception of this great nation) or not, she committed a crime and should be made to pay for it.

And e1986gonzalez, it's guilt by association, not innocence by association. Just because "everyone else does it and gets away with it" doesn't mean she should get a pass. She should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, up to and including her deportation. If the rest of us legals got a DUI, we'd spend time in jail or hefty fine.

and no bill, if your parents are naturalized, it does not immediately mean you are. They dropped the ball somehow.

sbdude (anonymous profile)
March 2, 2012 at 10:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Do the Kardashians know that one is missing from the nest?

equus_posteriori (anonymous profile)
March 2, 2012 at 12:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Loonpt - If we had a reasonable immigration policy, she would have left the country as soon as she was no longer authorized to remain here.

Botany (anonymous profile)
March 2, 2012 at 2 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I support the DREAM act completely as well as mostly open borders for folks who want to come here for work and education, but it's hard to sympathize with her after getting the DUI. If she cared so much about her education and career she wouldn't have gotten behind the wheel drunk in the first place.

Num1UofAn (anonymous profile)
March 2, 2012 at 2:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

JayB: "With no discrimination, we're suckers for things like Cuba sending us all their criminals and mentally ill, as they did in 1980."

WOOOH! You're lucky you specified 1980, I would've had to shank you if the case were otherwise. You know us Cubans, quick to let the blades fly! But hey, @ least we got our greencards :) henry

hank (anonymous profile)
March 2, 2012 at 3:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

We simply can't reward people for breaking the law. She can get deported, come back illegally like her parents did, and start fresh and new. Maybe she'll be smart enough to not break the law again.
If you end up giving her a pass, you've done a great deal of dis-service to those trying hard to make it through the same troubles as her.
Then who will be crying it's not fair?

BBOY (anonymous profile)
March 2, 2012 at 3:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"It doesn't say what her BAC actually was and the founder of MADD actually disassociated herself from the organization when they began to lobby for lowering the legal BAC from .10 to .08.... Her intention was to enforce the existing laws, not to ruin people's lives who have only had a couple of drinks and are able to drive perfectly safe."

loonpt
March 2, 2012 at 10:38 a.m.

Wrong loonpt. My dad was rear ended so violently it spun his car around 180 degrees into the opposite lane of traffic by a man with a 0.069 BAC. Had he been driving the Mustang instead of the Tracer, I think he would have been killed. He had been waiting for the opposite lane to clear so he could turn left. The court determined that alcohol played a role in the crash. This is why I'm admittedly obsessed about speaking out against all this "wine tasting" nonesense. What you put into your body is your business, but DON'T get behind the wheel because whatever other factors play into the drinkers' situation (fatigue, drinking on an empty stomach, etc) CAN be deadly.

"and no bill, if your parents are naturalized, it does not immediately mean you are. They dropped the ball somehow."

sbdude
March 2, 2012 at 10:47 a.m

Thanks for the clarification.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
March 2, 2012 at 3:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Is it usual for the Chancellor of UCSB to write a letter to the area's Congressional Representative asking for special treatment for one found guilty of DUI? And, for that matter, isn't it surprising that she was "arrested and convicted" so promptly, "late last month" or, apparently, in February or at the earliest, January, given that Armendariz, for example, among probably others in the over-crowded criminal justice system has not come to trial? Any why the glamor model photo when others have a standard booking photo? (Actually, the model photo doesn't help her but does make one wonder what, exactly, are the "contributions" she is making to the community --- unless modeling clothes is considered to be a really valuable thing.)

at_large (anonymous profile)
March 2, 2012 at 4:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

RESTATING from the beginning of this thread:

She broke the law by staying here and broke the law when she drove under the influence. I am appalled at the tolerance the school is showing for her doing something that could have killed innocent people!

I AGREE! Let this process continue and play out legally. A Facebook fan page and a glamour shot don't convince me. I will also find other ways to make sure that this popularity/beauty contest is stopped short of the wrong outcome.

BeachLivin (anonymous profile)
March 2, 2012 at 4:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I will marry her. Then she can get citizenship. People may say I am robbing the cradle!, she's too young for me!, it's not true love!. But I say it is... I fell in love just seeing that picture...
wha wha wee ♥♥♥♥

has anyone noticed she is beautifull?

boredandreading (anonymous profile)
March 2, 2012 at 7:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If America were a meritocracy and *anyone* living in the country could be deported for breaking the law, how many citizens do you think would be outa here?!

And if cheating on your spouse were included, oh boy!

Of course, this will never happen because we'd run out of politicians. Joe Armendariz, we're thinking about you.

EastBeach (anonymous profile)
March 2, 2012 at 8:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Henry-I demand to see your Green Card! Did you float over in 1980 on an ice chest buoyed with empty quart bottles of malt liquour? I knew it...

Why do Cubans like Miami:
It's right next to America;
Some workers there actually speak English;
They accept American Dollars in addition to Cuban Pesos at stores throughout the city!

italiansurg (anonymous profile)
March 2, 2012 at 9:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Maybe if she was an engineer or doctor we might consider keeping her, but a model majoring in communications is not really essential. We have enough models in the U.S. and lets not even get started in CA. I say lets chalk up our losses here and let this one go; I'm sure we will be alright.

AZ2SB (anonymous profile)
March 2, 2012 at 10:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ATTENTION SB CITIZENS:
Cindy Reyna works ILLEGALLY (obviously) in a club downtown called 'The Savoy'
Here is a proof of the facebook formal invitation to the public from The Savoy Staff:

We are so happy to have Cindy as one of the newest members of our staff! She is such a pleasure to be around and works her ass off so this Saturday night, The Savoy is celebrating her 23rd b-day!

This event is as classy as she is and ALL of you are invited!!
The party starts at 10:30 with bottle service as continues ALL NIGHT LONG! Come take a shot with the b-day girl and make her 23rd one she will DEF FORGET!

We love you Cindy!
♥ From the Savoy staff
This is from January 7th. 2012

NOW: How come she is not charged for Identity Theft ???
She had to provide a REAL SSN and LEGAL form of ID in order to work LEGALLY!

investigatorinaction (anonymous profile)
March 3, 2012 at 12:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

investigatorinaction (anonymous profile)
March 3, 2012 at 1:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Adios!

whatsinsb (anonymous profile)
March 3, 2012 at 7:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh, law enforcement is at work now?
Cuz there are some legals here that committed way more serious crimes in polytrix lies while our brothers and sisters died.

spacey (anonymous profile)
March 3, 2012 at 12:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm wondering what some of these comments would have been like if the Independent had run a different photo [like, say, her mug shot] than the "glamour" shot.

IMO the defendant should have to undergo the same consequences as any other defendant in the same set of circumstances. I'm sure a good immigration attorney can help her with her immigration issues. Somehow I don't see deportation being permanent for this defendant.

LegendaryYeti (anonymous profile)
March 3, 2012 at 2:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Investigatorinaction: "Cindy Reyna works ILLEGALLY (obviously) in a club downtown called 'The Savoy'
Here is a proof of the facebook formal invitation to the public from The Savoy Staff:"

"NOW: How come she is not charged for Identity Theft ???
She had to provide a REAL SSN and LEGAL form of ID in order to work LEGALLY!'

So a voice of reason asked me a very interesting question just now based on this tidbit of info:

Shouldn't Savoy be facing charges of hiring illegal immigrants as well as aiding & abetting in the procurement of false identification to an illegal immigrant?

I bet if questioned the Savoy staff & management will duck, dogde & hide every opportunity they get to answers such questions.
If ANYBODY on the Savoy staff, be it co-workers or management, knew of her illegal status then the organization itself can be charged.
This case is about to get as interesting as it can possibly get, given all the variables :) henry

hank (anonymous profile)
March 4, 2012 at 9:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I love these two sentences in the first paragraph:
"A DREAM Act-eligible student, Reyna moved to the country with her family in February 2004 on a six-month visitor’s visa. She’s now a UCSB senior majoring in communications and linguistics and is a part-time model."

Shouldn't they instead read:
"A DREAM Act-eligible student, Reyna moved to the country with her family in February 2004 on a six-month visitor’s visa. SHE THEN ILLEGALLY OVERSTAYED HER VISA, VIOLATING U.S. LAW. She’s now a UCSB senior majoring in communications and linguistics and is a part-time model.

willy88 (anonymous profile)
March 4, 2012 at 2:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Those clubs downtown don't hire on the basis of skills or legality... anyone can serve a drink but not many can fit into her dress.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
March 4, 2012 at 3:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

According to my wife, this girl has been here since way before 2004. How does she know? She lived down the street from her and went to school with her, so what is known is FALSE. She has been in the country illegally for quite some time now, and will probably continue to do so for some more time.

AZ2SB (anonymous profile)
March 4, 2012 at 9:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

KenV: "Those clubs downtown don't hire on the basis of skills or legality... anyone can serve a drink but not many can fit into her dress."

You're ABSOLUETLY right my friend, but the fact remains that to do such hiring by an employer, no matter how big or small, would therefore represent itself as what it ultimately is: A violation of the law.
I think the modeling agency she's done "part time modeling" for would also come into question.
What gets me is this: I recently had some "legal residency issues" compliments of 9/11. I was flagged, went to USCIS & DHS, got matters sorted out & now all concerned parties are happy.
In my case the issues were due to a clerical snafu in my original citizenship paperwork that cast a shadow of doubt. In her case it sounds to me like somebody figured:

1) The US govt. would not notice a small fish in the big pond.
2) The pro-illegal immigrant climate in CA would be in their favor.

Wrong on both accounts, as the formation of DHS is REALLY intent on tracking down anyone who is questionably here.
As for the pro-illegal immigrant climate in CA, well, USCIS & DHS are FEDERAL & they trump the state.
So what does that leave? A wanton desire to skirt the laws in place by the parents & support of such actions(s) by a community of entitlement that sees laws, rules & regulations as something to scoff @ because said laws, rules & regulations don't suit their needs or agenda.
I'm on the fence about this case, but as the true legal details emerge (no compliments of the local media & her supporters) it is starting to appear to me that somebody was trying to get something (the benefits of living in the US) for nothing (screw the legal process, don't apply to me).
It'll come down to a federal immigration judge to make the decision based on the evidence presented by DHS & USCIS.
In the end it comes down to that favorite little tune of mine by the band Blur called "We've got a file on YOU!" :) henry

hank (anonymous profile)
March 5, 2012 at 10:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

hank, here's the problem.

When I hire an illegal immigrant, I'm not injuring anybody. It is a voluntary monetary transaction.

The law should only be used to defend life, liberty or property and uphold contracts.

It should not be the job of employers to defend the borders or enforce immigration.

I am sorry that the feds came after you for not doing "your" job when it is supposed to be "their" job.

What we need to do is take away the government programs and incentives for illegals to come up here. When they come up here to work, everybody benefits, so we need an immigration policy that helps people come here and work and let them build a life here and pay taxes. I'm not fan of "the system", but we need to get them into our system so that they can be on a level playing field with everyone else.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
March 5, 2012 at 3:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks loon, but no need to feel sorry for me there bro, it was an honest mistake made back in 1967 that came to light after 9/11 & it did get corrected, no deportation needed.
To me it served as proof that certain revamps in the database actually DID their job.

I definitely agree w/ what you're saying in terms of the employer, but as the law stands...
I also don't agree that an employer has to play "la migra" in any way, but the problem is when they hire & under the current system they are liable.

But you hit it on the head w/ this::

Loonpt: "What we need to do is take away the government programs and incentives for illegals to come up here."

Awesome suggestion, but go back to what I said about what CA's social climate is: Pro-illegal immigrant.
W/ that said, those programs here in CA will never cease to exist, in fact certain activists will continually push for them.
I do also agree w/ you on the "work & pay taxes" aspect of what you're saying.
But then there's the risk of crimes commited & the possibility of a flight risk. This issue has multiple dimensions :) henry

hank (anonymous profile)
March 5, 2012 at 3:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Check out recent Guatemala human rights issues on KCSB - 91.9 6pm Tuesday March 6, replay of SB Public Access Channel 17 Third World News March 5. Guatemala report is near the end of 1 hour show.

14noscams (anonymous profile)
March 6, 2012 at 11:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Guatemala 101:

"The Guatemalan Civil War ended in 1996 with a peace accord between the guerrillas and the government, negotiated by the United Nations through intense brokerage by nations such as Norway and Spain. Both sides made major concessions. The guerrilla fighters disarmed and received land to work. According to the U.N.-sponsored truth commission the ("Commission for Historical Clarification"), government forces and state-sponsored paramilitaries were responsible for over 93% of the human rights violations during the war. Over the last few years, millions of documents related to crimes committed during the civil war were found abandoned by the former Guatamelan police. Among millions of documents found, there was evidence that the former police chief of Guatemala, Hector Bol de la Cruz had been involved in the kidnapping and murder of 27-year-old student Fernando Garcia in 1984. The evidence was used to prosecute the former police chief. The families of over 45.000 Guatemalan activists are now reviewing the documents (which have been digitalized) and this could lead to further legal actions. Paradoxically, the current democratically elected president, Otto Pérez Molina, could be a barrier to further legal action as he, a retired general, was the head of intelligence in Guatemala during the civil war.
During the first ten years, the victims of the state-sponsored terror were primarily students, workers, professionals, and opposition figures, but in the last years they were thousands of mostly rural Mayan farmers and non-combatants. More than 450 Mayan villages were destroyed and over 1 million people became displaced within Guatemala or refugees. Over 200,000 people, mostly Mayan, were killed during the civil war.
In certain areas, such as Baja Verapaz, the Truth Commission considered that the Guatemalan state engaged in an intentional policy of genocide against particular ethnic groups in the Civil War.
In 1999, U.S. president Bill Clinton stated that the United States was wrong to have provided support to Guatemalan military forces that took part in the brutal civilian killings.
Since the peace accords, Guatemala has witnessed successive democratic elections, most recently in 2011. In the 2011 elections, Otto Pérez Molina of the Patriotic Party, won the presidency. He assumed office on January 14, 2012. He names Roxana Baldetti as his vicepresident."

:) henry

hank (anonymous profile)
March 6, 2012 at 11:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Remember China Castle? They got busted for having 2-3 illegal Chinese in the kitchen. The place was closed; the owners got *a year each in prison*. Because they sheltered illegal immigrants. This, while ever other restaurant was filled with illegal chicanos/chicanas working in their kitchens.

So, there is more going on here than illegality.

SamRedDog (anonymous profile)
March 6, 2012 at 6:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think they the word is more like "imprisoning" not "sheltering" illegal immigrants, and they were more like indentured servants or slaves, not workers. A year was very lenient for imposing indentured servitude or slavery on other people, don't you think?

AZ2SB (anonymous profile)
March 6, 2012 at 9:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

(Why) is UCSB Chancellor Yang getting so involved in this issue? How many of the undocumented students at UCSB are receiving Federal funds (of any type)?

whatsinsb (anonymous profile)
March 8, 2012 at 6:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Why is Chancellor Yang getting involved? IMO because of a sympathetic defendant and his need to curry as much favor with various UC student groups as possible. I doubt if he's looking at the bigger picture or at the larger questions involved, because those in the ivory tower often can't see past the boundaries of their campus.

Perhaps Chancellor Yang will pass the hat to pay for the defendant's legal expenses. I have no doubt that deportation will be only temporary for her.

LegendaryYeti (anonymous profile)
March 9, 2012 at 12:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So let's sum it all up:

1. Illegally over-stayed her Visa, breaking our law.
2. Illegally worked at the Savoy.
3. Illegally drove drunk (DUI)
4. Is attractive, going to college and from Guatemala.

If you don't like the law, vote to change it. Until then, we are a nation of laws, not "she's my friend and I like her a lot!" or "she's hot and wants to finish college, so let her break the law".

Legal Immigration = Good (We are a nation built on LEGAL immigration).
Illegal Immigration = Bad

willy88 (anonymous profile)
March 10, 2012 at 2:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Cindy is not a criminal" - Yes she is. She chose to stay in this country illegally. She chose to drive while intoxicated.

She has been an "adult" for 5 years. She is supposedly smart, so why has she not filed the proper paperwork to make her stay legal? Because it wasn't important to her. Because she would lose money that we are providing for her?

None of her so-called supporters would be on her side if she had injured or killed someone.

She should be deported and go through the proper channels to re-enter the US if it is important to her. Had she made this a priority before this, she would not be facing this problem. As for getting behind the wheel after drinking, she should pay the same price as everyone does (legal or illegal).

The UCSB Chancellor should spend more of his time finding ways to help combat the drinking problem that is his campus and it's surrounding area of Isla Vista. UCSB should have mandatory alcohol/substance abuse programs.

momofone (anonymous profile)
March 12, 2012 at 3:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Momofone: You've mad the connection. The U.C.S.B. culture is soaked in booze so it only makes sense that the Chancellor would be defensive of her.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
March 12, 2012 at 10:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

i watched this girl get kicked out of a club just last wee for being extremely intoxicated a Eos just last week. she was fighting with another girl in line and started to swing her hands as if to hit the bouncer after being told to leave several times. DEPORT HER!! i understand that this happens all the time to U.S citizens but If you are hear on a visa or Illegally you should be on your best behavior.

joshuaa (anonymous profile)
May 10, 2012 at 2:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

While it is unfortunate that any child should be put in such a situation, the children of undocumented immigrants are disadvantaged by their parents, not anybody else. So, how is it then that tax payers should be obliged to pay for any part of their education?
Just saying this has really pissed off some of my Mexican friends but it seems entirely logical to me. I do not wish any harm on anybody, I just think that rewarding child-smuggling parents with legislation like the DREAM act is a bad idea and not something I want to pay for before every citizen or legal resident has received some help first.
What if, as a condition of receiving financial aid and/or citizenship, DREAM act students had to reimburse the cost of their parents deportation after graduation? I am not suggesting that this actually happen, just putting it out there.

Samito (anonymous profile)
May 14, 2012 at 9:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: